Got pulled for no insurance - Help!!

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

I think we know why we've ended up in this situation, trouble is it's gone too far and leading people who have paid the preimum ( or tried) ending up being uninsured and no way of applying for reinstatement.
Who created the no backdating rule? Is it government or insurance?

In this thread they increased the premiums until it was sorted out
they could have taken away the insurance there too
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

The answer below does not help the OP in anyway,it's more of a discussion point.

Motor insurance is not an "After the Event" policy. It is taken out in advance in case something happens, so backdating has not and never will be an option as such.

Too many people trying to frig the system means rules are applied hard and fast, for this you can blame them, as there is no longer any trust on either side.

Chopping & changing insurance to save a few quid also doesn't help, as you have to prove your NCD, it's a condition and a lot of insurers are making the timescales for doing so very clear. In the other situations you effectively "sign" to this effect by taking out the policy that you can & will provide evidence whenever requested by the insurer.

If you don't do this, then you're at risk. The fact that letters went AWOL is a grey area in this, but not a defence in Law, as this is absolute and clear, you either have it or you don't. You may get a reduced punishment for mitigating circumstances (even to the extent of a full discharge), but the law is clear.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Motor insurance is not an "After the Event" policy. It is taken out in advance in case something happens, so backdating has not and never will be an option as such.

In both this one and the one linked on page 1 they haven't tried to take out an after an event policy. In both cases they thought theyd taken out insurance, only subsequently found that the insurer had pulled the plug and in both cases met the 'we cant backdate' wall.
Neither wanted backdating they just wanted reinstatement.
Neither tried to get insurance artificially backdated.
I cant see the benefit to any us of leaving people uninsured like this.
No - it doesnt help OP
Why cant they reinstate? except for the computer says no.

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

In both this one and the one linked on page 1 they haven't tried to take out an after an event policy. In both cases they thought theyd taken out insurance, only subsequently found that the insurer had pulled the plug and in both cases met the 'we cant backdate' wall.
Neither wanted backdating they just wanted reinstatement.
Neither tried to get insurance artificially backdated.
I cant see the benefit to any us of leaving people uninsured like this.
No - it doesnt help OP
Why cant they reinstate? except for the computer says no.

Because a date was set for cancellation, the date passed, the policy was cancelled from inception, so effectively it never existed, there is nothing to back date.

You're right there is no benefit to leaving them uninsured, however there is also no benefit to leaving them insured, as they MAY have a policy at an artificially discounted price.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

however there is also no benefit to leaving them insured, as they MAY have a policy at an artificially discounted price.

That could be said about all of us

Assume they dont have a policy at an artifcicially discounted price (neither did)
Theyre just someone like you or me who believes they have insurance

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

That could be said about all of us

Assume they dont have a policy at an artifcicially discounted price (neither did)
Theyre just someone like you or me who believes they have insurance

That's true of sorts. Reality is that cases like this will call for discretion (assuming everything the OP has siad is true). If I see stuff like this then discretion would be applied, but in reality there's usually more to a story than the one side we get on here.

[LikesBikes]

So if you can take my word for it that there's nothing hidden behind what I've said, it would be best in this case to plead guilty with mitigating circumstances?

[saaby93]

ok for what it's worth
Go for not guilty and use the fact that you have a certificate and had not cancelled it. When discoverd that the insurance co had refunded the fee you tried to get them to take it back
Keep trying to get the insurance co to shift its position somehow.
What proof do you have that they sent the letters? Do you have copies now?
Chances just over evens?
Not easy
Youre not alone but not helpful unless you can use it in court
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
This may be helpful too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Theyre part of AIG. Tell them the FSA was concerned about leaving cusomers uninsured? Can they help?
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/hastings.pdf

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 19th September 00:02

[R1 Loon]

LikesBikes said:

So if you can take my word for it that there's nothing hidden behind what I've said, it would be best in this case to plead guilty with mitigating circumstances?

I'm not a solicitor and what I've said is hypothetical based on what I would've done from an insurance angle, IF this crossed my desk.

You need proper legal advice from someone with expertise in this area. You can not rely on the views of a group of random people on the internet, especially as none of them has anything to lose and a few probably have an axe to grind.

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

ok for what it's worth
Go for not guilty and use the fact that you have a certificate and had not cancelled it. When discoverd that the insurance co had refunded the fee you tried to get them to take it back
Keep trying to get the insurance co to shift its position somehow.
What proof do you have that they sent the letters? Do you have copies now?
Chances just over evens?
Not easy
Youre not alone but not helpful unless you can use it in court
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
This may be helpful too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Theyre part of AIG. Tell them the FSA was concerned about leaving cusomers uninsured? Can they help?
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/hastings.pdf

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 19th September 00:02

No they're not. They are owned by IAG, Insurance Australia Group.

This is another reason not to trust the internet for your defence, even basic facts can be incorrect.

[Red Devil]

It would seem that this company has a bit of a reputation for poor service and in particular cancelling policies.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews-all-2434.html#...

[R1 Loon]

Red Devil said:

It would seem that this company has a bit of a reputation for poor service and in particular cancelling policies.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews-all-2434.html#...

That may be true, but none of that will help the OP. There is no defence in Law in the UK by trying to point out that others are rubbish too.

[Red Devil]

R1 Loon said:

Red Devil said:

It would seem that this company has a bit of a reputation for poor service and in particular cancelling policies.
http://www.reviewcentre.com/reviews-all-2434.html#...

That may be true, but none of that will help the OP. There is no defence in Law in the UK by trying to point out that others are rubbish too.

I agree that it won't help the OP. But it might help others who are tempted by Hastings Direct's 'competitive' premiums. Pay peanuts, expect to be served by monkeys.

[Biker's Nemesis]

R1 Loon said:

saaby93 said:

ok for what it's worth
Go for not guilty and use the fact that you have a certificate and had not cancelled it. When discoverd that the insurance co had refunded the fee you tried to get them to take it back
Keep trying to get the insurance co to shift its position somehow.
What proof do you have that they sent the letters? Do you have copies now?
Chances just over evens?
Not easy
Youre not alone but not helpful unless you can use it in court
http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthr...
This may be helpful too
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...
Theyre part of AIG. Tell them the FSA was concerned about leaving cusomers uninsured? Can they help?
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/hastings.pdf

Edited by saaby93 on Sunday 19th September 00:02

No they're not. They are owned by IAG, Insurance Australia Group.

This is another reason not to trust the internet for your defence, even basic facts can be incorrect.

Don't you just love Googlers.

[E Ponym]

R1 Loon said:

Because a date was set for cancellation, the date passed, the policy was cancelled from inception, so effectively it never existed, there is nothing to back date.

So - in effect they backdated the cancellation. Who said they couldn't backdate things?

I think that you meant they won't backdate cover if it costs them, but in this case it won't cost them a bean as there has not been a claim.

[R1 Loon]

E Ponym said:

R1 Loon said:

Because a date was set for cancellation, the date passed, the policy was cancelled from inception, so effectively it never existed, there is nothing to back date.

So - in effect they backdated the cancellation. Who said they couldn't backdate things?

I think that you meant they won't backdate cover if it costs them, but in this case it won't cost them a bean as there has not been a claim.

It's not backdated in a legal sense. It is a legal right that insured have to void policies from inception (ab initio) due to a breach of the policy conditions. In this case the failure to provide the NCD within the required timescales (I know that is in dispute, but the right exists). It allows the insurer to trest the policy as null & void, but they must return all premiums paid.

Your post is very naive and a great example of the "insurance is a rip-off" brigade mentality. If there was a claim invvolving a TP then the insurer would be coughing up for them even though they returned all premiums and technically they are still liable for TP losses in a fault accident for the remainder of the 12 months if the driver chooses to drive uninsured.

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

It's not backdated in a legal sense. It is a legal right that insured have to void policies from inception (ab initio) due to a breach of the policy conditions. In this case the failure to provide the NCD within the required timescales (I know that is in dispute, but the right exists). It allows the insurer to trest the policy as null & void, but they must return all premiums paid.

Your post is very naive and a great example of the "insurance is a rip-off" brigade mentality. If there was a claim invvolving a TP then the insurer would be coughing up for them even though they returned all premiums and technically they are still liable for TP losses in a fault accident for the remainder of the 12 months if the driver chooses to drive uninsured.

I think thats useful to know
Even though OP was cancelled if he'd had an accident in intervening weeks he'd still have TP cover for the rest of us.
As they had the premium, would it have been more reasonable to have reduced to TP only cover rather than cancelling? Or would that typically be more than the premium paid?

[R1 Loon]

saaby93 said:

I think thats useful to know
Even though OP was cancelled if he'd had an accident in intervening weeks he'd still have TP cover for the rest of us.
As they had the premium, would it have been more reasonable to have reduced to TP only cover rather than cancelling? Or would that typically be more than the premium paid?

Too simplisitic an assumption I'm afraid.

The insurer is liable, but you've got to find them first then go through many, many hoops to satisfy their requirements that they remain liable. You'd claim on your FC policy and then wait a long time for your NCD to be reinstated.

Your second suggestion is a very good one in theory, although they would probably need to apply a secondary timescale on this, just to avoid situations where people could / would abuse it eg a serial crasher, with multiple points & bans takes a policy with Full NCD and zero points on his application. Even TP cover would be expensive.

Also TPO cover is not something that insurers like offering nowadays, as few insured drivers bother to eport the claim and the costs can escalate quite quickly.

[Noger]

E Ponym said:

R1 Loon said:

Because a date was set for cancellation, the date passed, the policy was cancelled from inception, so effectively it never existed, there is nothing to back date.

So - in effect they backdated the cancellation. Who said they couldn't backdate things?

I think that you meant they won't backdate cover if it costs them, but in this case it won't cost them a bean as there has not been a claim.

Apart from the admin costs, system costs, postage costs....apart from them beans, it didn't cost anything

[saaby93]

R1 Loon said:

Your second suggestion is a very good one in theory, although they would probably need to apply a secondary timescale on this, just to avoid situations where people could / would abuse it eg a serial crasher, with multiple points & bans takes a policy with Full NCD and zero points on his application. Even TP cover would be expensive.

I think thats the problem. In worrying too much about trying to remove people who are abusing the system, it's catching out normal people who believe they've correctly taken out their insurance.
Is it the old argument about how many guilty people do we want to go free to ensure that no-one who's innocent is locked up?

Any ideas to help out when it happens?

[Noger]

R1 Loon said:

LikesBikes said:

So if you can take my word for it that there's nothing hidden behind what I've said, it would be best in this case to plead guilty with mitigating circumstances?

I'm not a solicitor and what I've said is hypothetical based on what I would've done from an insurance angle, IF this crossed my desk.

You need proper legal advice from someone with expertise in this area. You can not rely on the views of a group of random people on the internet, especially as none of them has anything to lose and a few probably have an axe to grind.

100% this !

It seems to me that the procedure to cancel was followed (it isn't that far removed from most insurer's processes), even though the admin was pretty crap. That still means it was cancelled.

But I have no idea what that means from a court perspective. You need advice.

I know that if we have cancelled in error, then we can provide a letter to the court saying "our fault, we would have indemnified" but they STILL have to plead guilty because they actually didn't have cover.